27.08.2026 Item No.44 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra ML WP.CT 220 of 2025 Suraj Kumar -Versus – Union of India & ors. Mr. Anirban Dutta, Mr. S. Nandy ….for the petitioner Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Ms. Oindrila Chatterjee ….for the U.O.I. The present writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant, namely, Suraj Kumar (in short, Suraj) challenging an order dated 10th July, 2023 passed in two original applications (in short, OA) being OA 922 of 2014 and OA 1137 of 2019 and the order dated 13th December, 2023 passed in a review application being RA 23 of 2023 filed in connection with OA 922 of 2014 and an order dated 14th December, 2023 passed in review application being RA 24 of 2023 filed in connection with OA 1137 of 2019. Records would reveal that initially by a memo dated 14th September, 2012 a decision was taken to hold a selection towards formation of a panel for nine posts of Chief Law Assistant (in short, CLA). In response thereto, Suraj applied but he was not given any intimation that a departmental examination would be held on 08th June, 2013 and as such Suraj could not appear in the same. Aggrieved thereby, he submitted a representation on 24th July, 2013 but the same was not replied to. Aggrieved thereby, Suraj preferred the OA 922 of 2014 inter alia praying for providing suitable opportunity for examination of the said post. Subsequent thereto, a memo dated 19th February, 2016 was issued towards formation of a panel for filling up 11 posts of CLA. Responding to the same, Suraj applied but ultimately could not emerge to be successful in the written test. Aggrieved thereby, he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act in response to which he was furnished the question paper and the answer scripts. Upon scrutinizing the same, Suraj found that he has not been granted appropriate marks in question 1(B) (9) and (11). Protesting against such illegal marking, Suraj submitted a fresh representation but the same was not responded to. Aggrieved thereby, Suraj preferred OA being OA 48 of 2019 which was disposed of by an order dated 13th March, 2019 directing the competent authority to consider Suraj’s representation. Pursuant thereto, an order was passed by the Principal Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway rejecting Suraj’s claim. Aggrieved thereby, the second OA 1137 of 2019 was preferred. Both the said OAs were disposed of by an order dated 2 10th July, 2023. Challenging the said order, two separate review applications were preferred being RA 23 of 2023 and RA 24 of 2023. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for Suraj strenuously argues that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that he was illegally prevented from appearing in the written test held on 08th June, 2013. Had such opportunity being granted, Suraj would have come within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of CLA in the selection process which was initiated vide memo dated 14th September, 2012. He contends that in the selection process initiated vide 14th September, 2012, Suraj participated but he was not granted correct marks in the question no. 1(9) and 1(11) of (Group-B) and it was incumbent upon the respondents to reevaluate the answers given by Suraj in the said questions. The learned Tribunal, however, refused to exercise discretion in favour of Suraj without granting any appropriate reason. Such infirmity warrants interference of this Court. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate appearing for the Union and its functionaries submits that Suraj cannot turn back and challenge issues pertaining to the first selection process initiated vide memo dated 19th September, 2012 after having participated in the 3 selection process initiated vide memo dated 19th February, 2016. He further submits that an expert examiner had evaluated the answers scripts of all the candidates including that of Suraj pertaining to the selection process initiated vide 19th February, 2016. Such evaluation could not have been challenged by Suraj, moreso when there was no provision towards reevaluation of the answer scripts. Drawing our attention to the order passed in the review petitions, Mr. Bhattacharyya argues that the said applications were rightly dismissed as it is not a case that even after exercise of due diligence, the relevant documents could not be produced at the time of hearing of the OAs. There was no apparent error on the face of the records. The parameters prescribed for review do not postulate a rehearing of the dispute, moreso when review proceedings are not by way of an appeal. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. An issue pertaining to the selection process commenced vide memo dated 14th September, 2012 could not have been urged by Suraj having participated in the subsequent selection process initiated vide memo dated 19th February, 2016. The 4 learned Tribunal in the order impugned rightly did not interfere with the memo dated 30th May, 2019 as all the answers were correctly and uniformly evaluated by the evaluator. Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of an expert. The review applications were also rightly dismissed as no error on the face of the records could be established. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 5